Rogue Keeper on 27/3/2009 at 11:42
I guess I'm in the raph school. I'm not arguing the premises of modern 20th century movements, but abstract art is a backround decoration for me, rather than something I would enjoy watching repeatedly, or what would fill me with emotions.
Kolya on 27/3/2009 at 11:47
I saw a nice sticker lately saying: "Art can do everything and has to do nothing."
So yeah, I've probably gone too far saying these photo-realistic paintings had no artistic merit. But being the self-important, self-proclaimed art critic I am, these paintings strike me as heartless, soulless, spiritless copies whose only claim to fame is, that they were created in an extraordinarily cumbersome way, with the artist's only message being:
Lick my art dick! or
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFuVJDz5XuU) Lick my art tit! as luck may have it.
Mimetic art has a tradition reaching way back to the ancient Greeks who would get all riled up about paintings/reliefs/sculptures that were so real, people (or even animals) mistook it for reality and sometimes transcended it, eg in the (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_Achilles) description of Achilles' shield.
This changed with the advent of photography at the latest, when art's "benefit" was questioned but art also became free to do a lot of quirky, fantastic, weird, beautiful and stupid things. In the end this led a shift of focus from the surface of the image to it's inner structure of meaning, which is at it's core an interaction that the viewer has with the image. In short, (some) art requires you to have your head screwed on. Photo-realistic art never does. It's a nice diamond surface that locks the viewer out.
Rogue Keeper on 27/3/2009 at 11:51
Kolya, since you are apparently a specialist, may I ask for your analysis of Courbet's L´origin du Monde?
Nameless Voice on 27/3/2009 at 11:57
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
Maybe you are one of those people who say that System Shock 1 sucks, because the graphics on today's games are so much nicer ?
Sounds more like he's saying the opposite to me: that he'd say System Shock 1 is great because it had artistic merit, as opposed to many of the beautiful-looking but completely shallow games that we see more of these days.
I've got the impression that artists seem to be far more critical of what they'll consider art, often being loathe to call something outside of their own field 'art'.
Kolya on 27/3/2009 at 12:03
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
Kolya, since you are apparently a specialist, may I ask for your analysis of Courbet's L´origin du Monde?
It means that each and every one of us once had a vagina around our necks and you better not forget that fact.
Also: Your mother.
Rogue Keeper on 27/3/2009 at 12:08
Wrong! It's a piece of low, purposeless pornography with an uplifting label!
Judith on 27/3/2009 at 12:12
Quote Posted by raph
I'm not wrong.
I don't mind other people calling it art. To them it is, and I'm fine with that. To me it's not. To me art requires skill, and drawing straight lines doesn't. Just like the White on White doesn't.
I can appreciate classic paintings, but most of the abstract modern art stuff... Maybe one day I'll have an epiphany and magically "get it", but til then, honestly, meh.
Ok, you are not wrong, you just don't know anything about it, yet you think your opinion is important :). I don't like this stuff either, but at least I know how this movement was born, what those artists are trying to achieve, etc. And it absolutely makes sense.
I don't know why people think they're able to judge art without any knowledge about it. The more you know, the better, and less chance of making a fool of yourself. Otherwise, you can talk about nice or ugly colors, not really much more than that.
Kolya on 27/3/2009 at 12:18
Judith, you'll find that this is a very European point of view, despised by Americans as elitism. Because in the land of the free even the most uneducated twit has a right to an opinion.
They're just not as classy as we are. :)
Rogue Keeper on 27/3/2009 at 12:20
So what are you basically saying is that small privileged groups of academic artists are doing true art for each other and common people who won't bother to read their manifestos are ignorant philistines who aren't qualified to tell what is art and what is not, on their own. You have just nailed it.
What a snobbish way of seeing things.
rachel on 27/3/2009 at 12:25
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
Maybe you are one of those people who say that System Shock 1 sucks, because the graphics on today's games are so much nicer ?
Nah :) I love it. But games are a different medium where so-called "photorealism" is merely an asset, and isn't even close to the real deal yet. Also, what NV said.
Quote Posted by Judith
Otherwise, you can talk about nice or ugly colors, not really much more than that.
I would argue that one shouldn't have to read even a line to be moved or otherwise affected by a work of art. An explanation can complement it, but it shouldn't be necessary. It may seem vain to try to reproduce mundane objects, but the painstakingly difficult process that led to that kind of perfection is obvious to anyone. Limiting discussion to pretty colours just because one didn't read some book is incredibly reductive, and denotes a certain arrogance.
